Talk:K-pop/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about K-pop. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Portal
Portal:K-pop needs to be attended to. Last edit to the main page was on August 6, 2013. ☴ Jaewon [Talk] 15:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Done. I have no idea why A1candidate abandoned it... Since it has a news section it has to be updated regularly. Otherwise we need to remove the news section and let the pre-selected articles rotate. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 10:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. ☴ Jaewon [Talk] 14:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
YouTube views table
Is there a source confirming that these are the most viewed K-pop videos on YouTube? Otherwise the entire table looks like original research, in which case it should probably be deleted. Is anyone able to find a source for these rankings? – Liveste (talk • edits) 01:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- I've removed the exact numbers of views. This isn't a population census figure. Per MOS:LARGENUM, "Where explicit uncertainty is unavailable (or is unimportant for the article's purposes) round to an appropriate number of significant digits; the precision presented should usually be conservative. Precise values (often given in sources for formal or matter-of-record reasons) should be used only where stable and appropriate to the context, or significant in themselves for some special reason." Using exact view counts is unimportant for this article, and the values are definitely not stable as it is updated daily. -AngusWOOF (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, this page offers update data for the Youtube views of all K-pop videos (over 10 million views). It is automated, so I don't know if you would fit it into original research, but it merges videos from the same song, so one would still do a manual search on it: http://www.daisuki.com.br/en/app/kpop.html It is updated every ~2 weeks automatically (1 video an hour) You could also ask them to make a version without the merge, so it would be easier to get the top 20 raw videos (they updated the site and it now have an unmerged version!).201.41.247.39 (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- I agree it is useless if it is synthesizing data such as merging videos when those are not counting towards the official views. -AngusWOOF (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hi again, I asked the site owner to make an unmerged version and they did it. Might be useful now. 201.41.247.39 (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Celebrity fans redux
The following is retrieved from recent deletion, one reason given being, " oh come on. this is just chit-chat. most of it is unreliably sourced, and what on earth is the encyclopedic value of 'Snoop Dogg likes K-pop'?" As it is, it's long and chatty, but I hate to see all that work summarily junked with no discussion (there was no substantial discussion in the now-archived Talk topic from 2013). Perhaps something can be salvaged... --Tsavage (talk) 06:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Celebrity fans section
|
|---|
|
As K-pop gains fans around the world, the genre has managed to garnish actual celebrity fans of K-pop, particularly from the Western World. A number music artists and celebrities who have expressed interest in K-pop include:
|
And here are the references:
- It is entirely possible that something can be salvaged, but it's going to have to be something other than a list of X loves K-pop, Y loves K-pop, Z also loves K-pop. There is no way in which such content is relevant in an encyclopedia. I mean: "In March 2012, American pop singer and actress Ashley Tisdale tweeted about her discovery and her love of K-Pop. She praised the girl group 2NE1 in a tweet". That's chit-chat. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- The section could possibly be shortened to non K-pop celebrities who have done things to subsequently promote or incorporate the genre and its artists. The entries where the celeb wants to work with K-pop groups but hasn't actually done so can be removed. Parodies and renditions of K-pop songs can be removed as well since that is just fan reaction and impact, which can be merged into the "impact on pop culture" sections. -AngusWOOF (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- See, the point is, as it always seems to be in K-pop, that there is an utter lack of editorial judgment. Sure, it may well be that there are relevant and encyclopedic statements to be made, and I'd trust you or Shinyang or Kelapstick or whoever to exercise that judgment. But the typical editing mode here is to thrown everything in. Imagine if the article on the Beatles had that, who all likes the Beatles. Drmies (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, but just by the fact of the extremely detailed article we have here on K-pop, it seems to be (and I personally don't know this, it is my impression from the article), that K-pop is way more organized and globally, cross-culturally influential than the many other ethnic and regional pop scenes that do exist around the world, each also with their own styles, stars, fans and music business ecologies. If this is the case then, in a kind of reverse of our world-view/globalise tag, I'd be particularly interested here in any information about how "my" (Western, I'm in North America) world crosses over into K-pop, and celebrities are one easy and engaging way to explore this. The article has its socio-cultural or whatever theses (there's even a substantial section called "The concept of global entertainment"), so why not also some simple celebrity involvement coverage as well?! For an English-language encyclopedia, K-pop is not the same as the Beatles, and the standard for inclusion of this sort of thing is probably looser. (I don't mean to be argumentative, but I'm really more of an inclusionist, and I hate to see people's well-intentioned work, even crazed fanboys and girls if that is the case, just trashed. Wikipedia lives on contribution, not deletion! Here, we've cut out a crapload of stuff, at least some of it quite relevant, interesting and sourced, IMHO> :) --Tsavage (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- Late to this party, but I'm having trouble following you, Tsavage. I just can't buy into your apparent assertion that because kpop has a good marketing machine (a marketing machine which, by the way, came up with that "global entertainment" term itself - that was not coined independently) financially backed by the Korean federal government that Wikipedia should include more content about it than The Beatles. Wikipedia's job is not to promote an ~*~exciting new global trend~*~ to readers. We report on it the same as any other subject, the bar doesn't change simply because this sounds really cool. Apologies if I'm misunderstanding you. But the very idea of including a list of people whose opinions mean jack-shit who like pop makes me boil with rage. This article is bad enough as it is. Shinyang-i (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- Shinyang-i: Hahaha... I think you may have an inkling of what I was getting in a somewhat indirect way (I've also read your comment below, indicting the whole article). In Wikipedia, I'm mostly an inclusionist, and I hate seeing some people's work being deleted wholesale, especially while other work that may or may not be just as arguable. remains. If one or more editors have done a significant amount of work that has any possible merit, there should be a serious attempt at incorporating it, rather than deleting it out of hand. This article is already well over 30,000 words, more than 2 hours reading time, WAY beyond usable length as an encyclopedic summary of the topic. So if it can include all that, surely a kind of "K-pop in popular culture" celebrity section can have its place, too. :) --Tsavage (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Late to this party, but I'm having trouble following you, Tsavage. I just can't buy into your apparent assertion that because kpop has a good marketing machine (a marketing machine which, by the way, came up with that "global entertainment" term itself - that was not coined independently) financially backed by the Korean federal government that Wikipedia should include more content about it than The Beatles. Wikipedia's job is not to promote an ~*~exciting new global trend~*~ to readers. We report on it the same as any other subject, the bar doesn't change simply because this sounds really cool. Apologies if I'm misunderstanding you. But the very idea of including a list of people whose opinions mean jack-shit who like pop makes me boil with rage. This article is bad enough as it is. Shinyang-i (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, but just by the fact of the extremely detailed article we have here on K-pop, it seems to be (and I personally don't know this, it is my impression from the article), that K-pop is way more organized and globally, cross-culturally influential than the many other ethnic and regional pop scenes that do exist around the world, each also with their own styles, stars, fans and music business ecologies. If this is the case then, in a kind of reverse of our world-view/globalise tag, I'd be particularly interested here in any information about how "my" (Western, I'm in North America) world crosses over into K-pop, and celebrities are one easy and engaging way to explore this. The article has its socio-cultural or whatever theses (there's even a substantial section called "The concept of global entertainment"), so why not also some simple celebrity involvement coverage as well?! For an English-language encyclopedia, K-pop is not the same as the Beatles, and the standard for inclusion of this sort of thing is probably looser. (I don't mean to be argumentative, but I'm really more of an inclusionist, and I hate to see people's well-intentioned work, even crazed fanboys and girls if that is the case, just trashed. Wikipedia lives on contribution, not deletion! Here, we've cut out a crapload of stuff, at least some of it quite relevant, interesting and sourced, IMHO> :) --Tsavage (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- @AngusWOOF: That sounds like it might work. I will try to comb through and see if there is enough already there to support a non-obvious celebrity support section. You should try, too, you'll probably get to it first! :) --Tsavage (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- See, the point is, as it always seems to be in K-pop, that there is an utter lack of editorial judgment. Sure, it may well be that there are relevant and encyclopedic statements to be made, and I'd trust you or Shinyang or Kelapstick or whoever to exercise that judgment. But the typical editing mode here is to thrown everything in. Imagine if the article on the Beatles had that, who all likes the Beatles. Drmies (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Balance of article
I feel this article is incredibly unbalanced and should probably be renamed "Korean idol pop" or something of the sort. Western media coverage has focused on the mega-financial aspects of kpop, which right now is idol pop, as is reflected by this article. But kpop is a hell of a lot broader than this and idol pop is only one piece of the pie. Where's representation of the rest of kpop? I mean, if you're gonna call the article kpop, it should be about kpop, not just new fans' idea of what kpop is. Also, some of this content is downright embarrassing: list of popular kpop websites in English? I don't even get that. This isn't a promotional tool for kpop or those websites. There's no "list of popular anime websites" on the anime article. List of "k-pop terminology"? First, it's not Wikipedia's job to teach supposed k-pop lingo to people. There's no "list of anime terms" like genki, kawaii, oniichan, etc on the anime article. Second, those words are just regular Korean words, used in everyday speech by every single Korean person in every situation. The idea they belong to kpop is laughable, misleading, and really insulting. (Just like genki, kawaii, and oniichan are just regular Japanese words, not "anime words".) Even more industry-specific terms like "all-kill" (though I'm pretty sure this is used outside kpop too) - is it really Wikipedia's job to teach people how to understand dodgy translations from kpop fanblogs? So, in summary: too much idol pop only, too much "learn to be a kpop fan!!" material. Let's make this article better; it's the first stop for most readers curious about this topic and it needs to be ace. Shinyang-i (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- 1. "Other stuff doesn't exist" is not a convincing argument and it is generally not recommended to use it on Wiki. 2. If you want to make the article more balanced, go expand the non-idol parts. Right now it sounds like you just want to delete some stuff that you don't like. 3. In my opinion the article is more or less fine and the list of K-pop terms is helpful and no need to insult its authors by saying the result is "laughable". If you saw how the article looked a couple of years ago, you would highly praise the people who rewrote it. And who made it possible for you to criticize it cause there was nothing much to look at before they came. (4. By the way, there is some stuff I don't like about this article, like the "Rise of Hallyu" section, and I think the "Asia", "Europe", "Oceania" etc. sections, are useless as they are now cause no one really cares who performed where and when. But I am not going to destroy someone else's work unless I am prepared to put as much effort and time in this article as e.g. Teemeah did.) (5. If you e.g. don't like the list of terms, you can just propose it for splitting into a separate article.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Shinyang-i: Interesting. Strong words of sweeping criticism. So what would you actually do about it? Copying the table of contents gets you an instant outline of the article, and it's quick and easy to annotate that to give a broad strokes idea of what you think should be kept, changed, or deleted on a section by section basis. --Tsavage (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for acting like an editor, Tsavage, and thanks also for your comments above; I understand your position much better now and I appreciate the time you took to clarify. Overall, intro-type articles like this one need constant review and criticism, from people who haven't worked on them before. That's how things remain balanced and NPOV. That's the case for any portal-type article, not just kpop. I work every day on kpop-related articles, so I'm not a random do-nothing complainer as some may imply. But I have not been involved in this particular article before. It's easier for me to address topics directly, rather than via the TOC, so that's what I'll do. These are just the three main things that jumped out at me. I was actually very shocked to see two of these items hadn't been addressed before, as I can't see them passing muster on many other articles. That is not meant to offend, it's just a statement.
- First, I'd propose getting rid of the "popular kpop websites" because I can't see their point. Those websites are not about kpop, they feature kpop news stories, opinions, and gossip. They won't serve to teach readers about the subject of kpop, they are fanblogs with kpop stories on them, which isn't the same thing. They serve to make someone a kpop fan, not educate them about kpop as a subject, which is the point of this Wikipedia article. Also, the choices seem just based on fan preference, which is a weird thing to have on Wikipedia. While Moscow Connection is correct that "other things don't exist" isn't a justification by itself, I don't think you'll see anything like this on any other Wikipedia article and that is worth noting, no matter what he/she says. (disclaimer: I've met the owners of one of those sites many times. Nice people and I have nothing against them or their site. This isn't a matter of personal like or dislike, as was previously implied.) Instead of accusing me of wanting to destroy someone's work, let's talk about various editors' perceptions of why those websites are there now (what is their purpose?) and whether they should or shouldn't continue to be included in the article.
- Second, I'd propose getting rid of the list of random Korean words, as that's what they are - random Korean words. I see the good intentions, but those particular words are not used any more or less frequently in relation to kpop than they are in any other aspect of Korean-speaking life, and they are not used more or less in kpop songs themselves than any other words. So the list is labelled erroneously to begin with - they are not "kpop words". If anything, they illustrate some aspects of Korean culture (kinship terms, etc), which is not what this article is about. Secondly, they are unnecessary. You can understand the subject of kpop completely without learning those words. Fans of kpop who don't spend a lot of time reading stuff at the fanblogs (and there are indeed many of us) do just fine without knowing all the lingo those sites use. Therefore, a list of words like that is really outside the scope of this article, surely. Terms like "all-kill", well again you can understand kpop fine without knowing it since not every fan cares about record charts or fanblog terminology, but those might bear further discussion. But let's talk about it instead of accusing me of dastardly deeds. :)
- Third, I do think the article could benefit from expansion in other types of kpop and consequently a lot less detail about idol pop (to offset the added length), and that would definitely be a collaborative effort that would occur over time and with, admittedly, more difficulty than the idol group material. A plan of action of sorts would be needed for that. It would impact the structure of the article as a whole, so the broad sections would need to be re-evaluated at that point. I have no master plan for this; I was just observing that this article is almost entirely about idol pop, and other parts of kpop are underrepresented. No reason an editor shouldn't make that observation!
- The purpose of this article isn't to turn people into kpop fans, and I'm sure that's no editor's conscious attempt, but that is kind of what some of this feels like. It can be hard to self-edit when you're enthusiastic about a subject. I like kpop too but I don't think I have the emotional connection to it that some other editors do. Less passionate people like me and enthusiastic superfans and everyone in between are all are needed to constantly improve articles on broad and entry-level articles like this. Thank you for your time. Shinyang-i (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for acting like an editor, Tsavage, and thanks also for your comments above; I understand your position much better now and I appreciate the time you took to clarify. Overall, intro-type articles like this one need constant review and criticism, from people who haven't worked on them before. That's how things remain balanced and NPOV. That's the case for any portal-type article, not just kpop. I work every day on kpop-related articles, so I'm not a random do-nothing complainer as some may imply. But I have not been involved in this particular article before. It's easier for me to address topics directly, rather than via the TOC, so that's what I'll do. These are just the three main things that jumped out at me. I was actually very shocked to see two of these items hadn't been addressed before, as I can't see them passing muster on many other articles. That is not meant to offend, it's just a statement.
- I guess that'll be filed under "duly noted." :) Cheers! --Tsavage (talk) 03:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
K-pop article outline for editing notes
|
|---|
1 Overview 2 History 2.1 The beginnings of Korean popular music 2.2 1940s–1960s: Arrival of Western culture 2.3 1970s: Korean hippie folk pop 2.4 1980s: The era of ballads 2.5 1990s: The turning point 2.6 21st century: Rise of Hallyu (Korean Wave) 3 Characteristics 3.1 Hybrid and transnational values 3.2 The concept of global entertainment 3.3 Marketing 3.4 Dance 3.5 Fashion 4 K-pop as an industry 4.1 Agencies 4.2 Sales and market value 4.3 Trainee system 4.4 Record charts 5 K-pop culture 5.1 Basic notions and conventions 5.2 Frequently used expressions 5.3 Appeal and fan base 5.3.1 Obsession 5.4 Events 5.4.1 International tours 5.4.2 Conventions and music festivals 5.5 K-pop and social media 5.5.1 Internet memes 5.5.2 YouTube views 6 Popularity and impact 6.1 Asia 6.1.1 India 6.2 North America 6.3 South America 6.4 Europe 6.5 Middle East and Africa 6.6 Oceania 7 Current issues 7.1 K-pop and foreign policy 7.2 Criticism 8 Regulations 9 List of K-pop artists |
You are free to rewrite whatever you want. I'm not going to touch this article anymore, or any other article on enwiki apart of smaller corrections. I'm done with enwiki, it's just too much effort for nothing, whatever someone does sincerely, someone else comes and rips it into pieces based on ridiculous reasons (nitpicking) but doesn't actually do anything him/herself apart from criticizing and spitting at others' work. I did this article the way I wrote the huwiki on - which is an FA. Here it is impossible to reach consensus on anything. Some parts were added which I don't like (I don't think we need the celebrity fans, for example). The expressions I deem important, because this is a subculture and a lot of people have no clue about these words when they read quotes related to Kpop or read one of the source articles full of these expressions. You do with them whatever you please, I don't care anymore. This article will never be decent anyways, because a lot of preteen kpop fans change it to their liking every day. Good luck with trying to clean it up. I gave up already. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 14:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- A little off-topic but I'm coming to the same conclusion as you. Articles that are heavily fan-supported or have polarized groups of editors are impossible to work with - you can spend endless energy "discussing" but it will go nowhere. This was always so, to a point, but things used to get resolved. Now, people dig in their heels, cite guidelines with shortcut links - WP:CRIT! - call in page protection, and just...argue. Not the good old days, just evolution, I suppose. (Luckily, there are lots of pages that are fun to edit that are not in this sort of spotlight.) --Tsavage (talk) 03:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Fate of List of most viewed kpop music videos
What should become of List of most viewed kpop music videos? It is an expired PROD. I'll let you nice K-poppers decide. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm undecided. There is a List of most viewed YouTube videos, so if that is notable, this is notable too. Also, the claim that it may change very often is true for the aboe named list as well. On the other hand, it needs sources other than Youtube. --Teemeah 편지 (letter) 14:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- If it was an attempt to offload the table from the main article, it didn't work as the main article still has a table, so now it's in two places. Per the previous discussion (YouTube views table), there was an online tool to extract views. Is YouTube itself even making such charts? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Glossary of Korean terms
I think the time is ripe to create a glossary of Korean terms, not just for K-pop, but for Korean in general. If this occurs, will it be worthwhile keeping the section here, or should it be mainarticled.--KTo288 (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- What terms? Wikipedia is not a dictionary, glossary pages will not be tolerated, I think. Even this section here was debated couple of times. I think within context, inside the article it should be no problem, since this is a short list of very genre-specific terms nobody would understand otherwise. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 12:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- This wouldn't work for the K-pop industry-specific terms such as "all kill" and "comeback", which are better served to redirect here. A generic glossary would be something like this HERE and that has hardly anything to do with K-pop. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- As Category:Wikipedia glossaries will attest we have plenty of glossaries, though maybe the name can be a little misleading, an equally apt title would be somnething like List of xyz terms with most of the entries either having their own articles, or where there isn't enough to justify an article, a definition.--KTo288 (talk)
- OK, I didn't know these existed. But then it has to be topic specific. And adequately sourced. Which could be difficult with Kpop terms, even for these few terms I spent hours trying to find acceptable sources. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 07:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- As one of the threads above says some terms are just normal every day Korean terms which have come to a more widespread audience because of K-pop and K-drama, maybe something like Glossary of Korean wave terms or Glossary of Korean popular culture terms would be both broad enough to cover most of the Korean terms English speakers will come into contact with, while at the same time specific enough not to become a general dictionary of every Korean word and term. With regards to sourcing, usually no sources will be needed in a glossary for anything with its own article, e.g. Aegyo, or its own section in an article e.g Seonbae, sourcing would go into and be derived from its own article. The general test is that something can be verified by a source, not that it has to be verified by a source. Unsourced material can be challenged and removed, and remarkable claims need sourcing more than unremarkable claims (its not ideal) however as long as no one challenges a claim an article can get by and survive with no references at all. Glossary of Indian culture for example has no references, but the majority of its items have their own articles, which are sourced. We give the benefit of the doubt to those items without their own articles and are unsourced, because the sourced items lend enough credibilty to the list for us to trust that things are not being made up.--KTo288 (talk) 10:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- OK, I didn't know these existed. But then it has to be topic specific. And adequately sourced. Which could be difficult with Kpop terms, even for these few terms I spent hours trying to find acceptable sources. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 07:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- As Category:Wikipedia glossaries will attest we have plenty of glossaries, though maybe the name can be a little misleading, an equally apt title would be somnething like List of xyz terms with most of the entries either having their own articles, or where there isn't enough to justify an article, a definition.--KTo288 (talk)
- This wouldn't work for the K-pop industry-specific terms such as "all kill" and "comeback", which are better served to redirect here. A generic glossary would be something like this HERE and that has hardly anything to do with K-pop. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
AFD on the kpop music videos list
I started an AFD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most viewed kpop music videos. Please provide additional comments if you feel like it should be merged to this list or deleted from both. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2015
 | This edit request to K-pop has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Klever7 (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC) Good Boy has more views than Bad Boy and it is possible that it is going to catch Bonamana tomorrow
Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I am working on Seungri (a Member of BigBang)'s page. Amy one has any idea or suggestions? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by WRWRachel (talk • contribs) 00:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on K-pop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140220170218/http://ph.omg.yahoo.com/news/kim-hyung-jun-completes-his-south-american-concert-025700671.html to http://ph.omg.yahoo.com/news/kim-hyung-jun-completes-his-south-american-concert-025700671.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Random Korean word list
Huge thank you to whoever finally removed the long list of random Korean words like "oppa" and "fighting" that had nothing to do with k-pop. Now it's time for "Seonbae" and "Hoobae" to go, too. They are simply Korean words used in all aspects of Korean society and are not about k-pop AT ALL. Just because k-pop singers say them doesn't mean anything; EVERYONE in Korea says them. It's like putting "bicycle" on the list because some generic girl group member said it in an interview once. Still, glad to see some of the fancrap removed from this article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.44.174 (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. Those words are not industry-specific, so I removed them from the list. Random86 (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Page Feedback
Hello, I am taking a class that is requesting I give feedback on a talk page regarding an article. For this article some of the references used are from sites that could be considered questionable in authenticity. Sites like Allkpop, while well established in the Kpop world are almost like the National Enquirer for Kpop and perhaps can tarnish the quality of the article by being an unreliable source. I also think that America’s influence on Korean music is a little overrepresented. While I agree that there are elements of American music that have been part of Kpop I think that some of the information takes away from some of the influence Korean music has had on Kpop. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to offer feedback on this article. -Mtscott (talk) 06:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Foreign Relations Section
I will be updating the last paragraph in this section because it is fairly vague, and there has been more reporting since this was originally published. VOrtiz (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Chart is original research/synthesis
The chart "List of most viewed K-pop music videos on YouTube" is apparently synthesis. We are attempting to guess what the most viewed K-pop videos on YouTube might be, look up their view counts and list what we find. We do not have a reliable source that lists the most viewed K-pop videos on YouTube. YouTube might have a way to list the most viewed videos that they list as K-pop. YouTube is not a reliable source for genres. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose removal. See [1]. It is a reliable source.
And Billboard, it publishes lists of most-viewed K-pop videos by month: [2], [3], [4]. This one is a quarterly list: [5].
By the way I suggest you look at articles like "List of most viewed YouTube videos", "List of best-selling books", "List of best-selling albums", "List of best-selling music artists", "List of best-selling video games". That is where you find real original synthesis. (But beware, if you attempt to place OR tags on them you will be reverted in no time. The K-pop article is absolutely defenseless in comparison.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC) - @SummerPhDv2.0: By the way, I can just recreate the list as a standalone article now. Would you mind? The first source I listed is reliable. If someone is afraid that updating the number of views constitutes an original research (I don't think so, it's simply WP:CALC), the new article can be protected somehow and kept in the October 2016 state for some time. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Please do not create the standalone article unless there is consensus that the material should be moved there. An AFD had already run to merge it back to here. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- You have not addressed the issue. The current chart (according to its citation) is original research produced from the primary source.
- Updating from a source is not a calculation. The source might say what the most viewed videos were as of October 2016. If you change those numbers, you are no longer reflecting what the source says.
- Yes, there are other articles. Some of them are pretty good, some of them suck. Some of each are in various ways similar to this one. Some of them have grammatical errors and spelling mistakes, but I'd still like to fix similar errors in this article. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- I can't agree. The idea of the list is not original. It even warrants its own standalone article. And I don't think it is an original research to update it.
Now I'll resume. In your original rationale you stated:
1. We do not have a reliable source that lists the most viewed K-pop videos on YouTube.
—I've already found a source.
2. YouTube is not a reliable source for genres
—I've found the aforementioned source. And I have found many other Billboard articles that list K-pop videos.
This only leaves a small matter of updating the views. I'm sure all the lists I mentioned earlier are updated on a regular basis. It's not a big deal. There are probably hundreds of lists like that on Wiki.
By the way, now, when I found "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most viewed kpop music videos" and I see people who voted to delete simply because there was already a similar list here, I think it is all the more incorrect to even attempt to delete it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC) - I really, really think you should start by cleaning up the "List of best-selling music artists". And by the way, it has been updated just now: [6], [7], [8], [9]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- I can't agree. The idea of the list is not original. It even warrants its own standalone article. And I don't think it is an original research to update it.
- I've found 3 videos that are not on the SBS list:
Psy ft. Hyuna "Oppa Is Just My Style" — No idea why.
Psy ft. Snoop Dogg "Hangover" — Billboard calls it a K-pop/hip-hop collaboration [10], I will have to check if it listed it as a K-pop video on their lists. (I'll do it tomorrow.)
Girls' Generation "Mr. Taxi" (Dance Ver.) — It is a Japanese version. I think it should be deleted from the list. But I will have to check Billboard.
I must say that the SBS list is very similar. Some videos in the lower half have moved a bit, that's all. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC) - I've already checked.
"Hangpover" is on Billboard's list in 2014: [11]. No problem then, it counts as K-pop.
It looks like "Oppa Is Just My Style" can't be found anywhere on the Billboard lists. I'm not sure why. Maybe because it wasn't already that popular when Billboard started to compile them in 2013. Maybe because it is not an original song.
I'm not sure what shoukld be done with the Japanese version of "Mr. Taxi". The Korean version appeared on Billboard's K-pop chart [12], but this is a Japanese version... --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC) - Oops, "Mr. Taxi" is present on the SBS list [13], it is number 12 (two positions higher than on our list because of "Oppa Is Just My Style" and "Hangover"). I don't know why I didn't notice it.
This leaves only "Oppa Is Just My Style", which is simply a girl version of "Gangnam Style" and there is no reason why it can't be included. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)- Yes, there are other articles. I am discussing this article.
- Between the sourced list from 3 months ago and now, it is entirely possible that the order has changed, a new song has made its way onto the list, etc. If you have a reliable source for October 2016, give the information in the reliable source and cite it. Do not synthesize a new list by "updating" the material from one source with data from another (primary) source.
- The other pages demonstrate that there is a wider consensus that such lists can be updated. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- No, they demonstrate that other pages exist. There are thousands of such possible pages that do not exist. Suppose you are using a source that lists #1 to 10. Two days later, the #11 song overtakes #10. You have "updated" the list to show the new numbers and the new date, but do not notice the new #10 song. You now have incorrect information, based on synthesis that you are incorrectly attributing to the original source. That is not how Wikipedia works. - SummerPhDv2.0 05:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- You are simply nitpicking. The list is updatable and sourceable. Everything else is just nitpicking on letters of a broad-scale rule. Why are you not pondering on the talk page of the List of most viewed YouTube videos about the same issue? :) Teemeah 편지 (letter) 12:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Other stuff does indeed exist. I am discussing this article.
- We have a list that shows the most viewed videos as of October 2016. This article currently claims it is from December. This is not kinda-sorta bending the "letters of a broad-scale rule". This is going directly against one of Wikipedia's core policies. We do not have a source saying what the most viewed videos were as of December 2016. - SummerPhDv2.0 13:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- WP:CALC.
Btw, I've looked at some featured (featured!) lists and apparently they get updated regularly. So it's normal practice on Wiki: [14], [15].
I think we should end this discussion cause it doesn't look like there will be a consensus to delete. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)- CALC would apply if I were saying that you added two numbers and got the wrong answer. That has nothing to do with the problem.
- What is done in other articles that you believe are in some way identical to this one are not what we are discussing.
- Let's try a thought experiment: You have a source giving the most viewed videos as of October 2016. If you take that source ten years later and update the number of views, will you still have a list of the 25 most viewed videos? Probably not. Positions will likely change, new songs will displace old songs, etc. Your synthesis would clearly be wrong. What if you are using a list that is five years old? One year old? At what point, in your opinion, is the list too old to be combined with other sources to support a statement that the source does not make? - SummerPhDv2.0 02:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I've already stated my opinion. I don't have time to go in circles and repeat the same thing over and over again. You don't have support here. Please don't remove the list anymore.
(Actually, I noticed this topic in December, but I am tired of people picking at K-pop articles all the time and I thought I shouldn't waste my time on this. I didn't expect you would delete the list without any discussion. Cause no one replied. But you did...)
(And for some reason I think Teemeah feels the same thing, I remember some years ago she was a frequent visitor to this page, but now she doesn't bother anymore.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I've already stated my opinion. I don't have time to go in circles and repeat the same thing over and over again. You don't have support here. Please don't remove the list anymore.
- WP:CALC.
- You are simply nitpicking. The list is updatable and sourceable. Everything else is just nitpicking on letters of a broad-scale rule. Why are you not pondering on the talk page of the List of most viewed YouTube videos about the same issue? :) Teemeah 편지 (letter) 12:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- No, they demonstrate that other pages exist. There are thousands of such possible pages that do not exist. Suppose you are using a source that lists #1 to 10. Two days later, the #11 song overtakes #10. You have "updated" the list to show the new numbers and the new date, but do not notice the new #10 song. You now have incorrect information, based on synthesis that you are incorrectly attributing to the original source. That is not how Wikipedia works. - SummerPhDv2.0 05:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- The other pages demonstrate that there is a wider consensus that such lists can be updated. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- I've found 3 videos that are not on the SBS list:
List of 20 most viewed K-pop music videos on YouTube
This is a very problematic section that simply goes by the views counter on Youtube. It is rightly tagged with it being WP:OR. In four cases there is a third party reference, although one of them is allkpop (not WP:RS. Over the past two weeks, the edits on the page have focused on the updating of the counters for these videos, without supplying references to indicate their notability. Asking @Random86:, @TerryAlex:, @Moscow Connection: to weigh into the issue at hand. Karst (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Everything is explained here: #Chart is original research/synthesis. Some great reliable sources are provided in the discussion. Everything else is WP:CALC and there's a de-facto Wikipedia-wide consensus that such lists can be updated. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- To be clear, this is not about the notability of the list itself but about this edit that I reverted. @Jamonaitor: to explain his edit to avoid reverting. Furthermore, the notes need expanding with 3rd party sources. For instance, it is claimed that "Bang Bang Bang" (2015) is the 'second K-pop group video to reach 200 million views'. That needs a reference. Karst (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Karst, Moscow Connection, and SummerPhDv2.0, as original research is a serious issue, I suggest we should take it to Wikipedia:Third opinion to hear a thorough opinion from some other editors. The discussion can't reach a consensus in its current standstill position.--TerryAlex (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Why? Some random editor will come and express his opinion.
I think we should contact editors who edit and update similar standalone lists instead. High-profile ones, like "List of best-selling albums", "List of best-selling music artists". I think they are better qualified to judge whether such lists can be updated.
The truth is that this article is an easy target. If this is a problem, it should be discussed in general in relation to all the lists on Wiki and not like "I hate this list in the K-pop article and I will delete it. This will be my small victory."
I think it's such a minor issue that no one should care. An editor updated the count and noticed that there was another K-pop video that qualified for the list and he/she added it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Why? Some random editor will come and express his opinion.
- This is [16] the best source I could find for the claim. It is technically not a third-party source, but given the triviality of the claim it is good enough for me. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- TerryAlex: WP:3O is not an option, as we already have more than two opinions. WP:DISPUTE suggests a moderated discussion (which seems to better fit a case where facts are disputed), then 3O, then Request for comments.
- Moscow Connection: I do not agree that we should ask for input from editors of other articles which contain lists that are "similar" but "high-profile". Instead, an RfC, while open to anyone, would call attention to the question among editors willing to offer opinions within media and the arts. (The source you are citing is, as you say, not an independent source. It's a promotional page and does not provide the list we are presenting in the article. This is synthesis: Combining material from two or more sources to make a claim neither on directly supports, much as the continually updated view counts are.)
- There is the possibility that this list is a "minor issue" that no one cares about, such that no sources exist for it, in which case we aren't in the place to create it. I rather suspect there is an independent reliable source for the list, but it might not be updated regularly. If that is the case, we might simply need to have somewhat dated information, with the chart clearly identified and the "Top 10...as of June 2016" or whatever.
- In any case, I would like to suggest we go ahead with an RfC, something along the lines of "Is updating this list from several sources acceptable?" (While I would like to ask if it is "original research", I don't think there's any question. It seems to be a matter of whether or not we should allow it any way.) - SummerPhDv2.0 22:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- If it happens, I will ask some editors that edit similar lists to come by. And I think it will also be a good idea to start a serious and profound discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or somewhere like that. Cause I think an attempt to present the case as something only relevant to this page is misleading. Sure, there is a good chance that some editor who doesn't know anything about such lists on Wiki will say to delete this particular list only because someone added a new video to it. (A video that can easily be confirmed as K-pop. With easily verifiable number of views. It's easy as 1, 2, 3. Which can't be said about almost any other list on Wikipedia. This is the most legitimate list of all and yet this is the one you want to delete.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- You have repeatedly said that someone (presumably me?) wants to delete this list. My goal is not to delete the list. My goal is to ensure that we are not presenting original research and/or synthesis in place of verifiable information. As it stands, the list is synthesis with a touch of original research. If we can find an independent reliable source which states what the most viewed K-pop videos on Youtube are as of a particular date, we should probably present that information. If, however, you want to take information from an independent reliable source, add new data from various sources, remove old data, reorder data, etc., that is no longer verifiable.
- "Asking some editors of similar lists" is probably a bad idea. It is entirely too easy to accidentally select a set of indirectly related articles and uninvolved editors that is in some way not representative and run afoul of Wikipedia:Canvassing. - SummerPhDv2.0 02:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Incidentally, attempts to go fishing for a "third opinion" that suits you on another forum are discussed at Wikipedia:Canvassing, see Wikipedia:Canvassing#Other forms of inappropriate consensus-building. That is exactly what Karst and you are attempting to do here. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- I am trying to find a solution here based on approaches outlined at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. Discussion here went nowhere. There were no responses at the No original research noticeboard.
- TerryAlex suggested WP:3O. While that is a valid approach (see Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Third_Opinion), it is only for use when the discussion is limited to two parties.
- If I am understanding you correctly, you feel I am or we are forum shopping. I don't think we are anywhere near that. If I had gotten a response at another forum that was contrary to what you have decided is my goal and continued to take the issue to other forums of similar level, I think you would have a point. In this case, after the unproductive discussion here, I took the issue to a forum and got no response. I am now trying other options outlined at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. Requests for comment is one of those options.
- Your suggested "choosing editors of somehow similar but high profile lists to weigh in" seems, to me, to unintentionally tend toward vote stacking: editors of "similar" lists (if they are similar in being Frankensteined together from multiple sources) are likely to see no particular problem with what they are doing. If a list has been removed as synthesis, there is no way for us to find the editors working on that list because it does not exist.
- An Rfc is one of the ways recommended to solve disputes. Is the suggested wording ("Is updating this list from several sources acceptable?") acceptably neutral? - SummerPhDv2.0 18:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that WP:RFC seems like the most appropriate method to proceed.--TerryAlex (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- Incidentally, attempts to go fishing for a "third opinion" that suits you on another forum are discussed at Wikipedia:Canvassing, see Wikipedia:Canvassing#Other forms of inappropriate consensus-building. That is exactly what Karst and you are attempting to do here. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- If it happens, I will ask some editors that edit similar lists to come by. And I think it will also be a good idea to start a serious and profound discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or somewhere like that. Cause I think an attempt to present the case as something only relevant to this page is misleading. Sure, there is a good chance that some editor who doesn't know anything about such lists on Wiki will say to delete this particular list only because someone added a new video to it. (A video that can easily be confirmed as K-pop. With easily verifiable number of views. It's easy as 1, 2, 3. Which can't be said about almost any other list on Wikipedia. This is the most legitimate list of all and yet this is the one you want to delete.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Karst, Moscow Connection, and SummerPhDv2.0, as original research is a serious issue, I suggest we should take it to Wikipedia:Third opinion to hear a thorough opinion from some other editors. The discussion can't reach a consensus in its current standstill position.--TerryAlex (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- To be clear, this is not about the notability of the list itself but about this edit that I reverted. @Jamonaitor: to explain his edit to avoid reverting. Furthermore, the notes need expanding with 3rd party sources. For instance, it is claimed that "Bang Bang Bang" (2015) is the 'second K-pop group video to reach 200 million views'. That needs a reference. Karst (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Umm...
User:DrStrauss, did you intend to revert nine edits? Image placement is largely a matter of taste, but WP:EL is pretty clear about putting external links in the body of an article. TimothyJosephWood 17:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- Also, when someone indicated that an image is being moved to avoid a formatting issue, you should probably play with your screen resolution to make sure you get what they're referring to. On narrower resolutions the image of Psy causes about a four inch gap of empty white space between the text and the table. On slightly wider resolutions it causes the image to render to the right of the table leaving about a two inch gap of white space to the right, and displaying the table off-center. TimothyJosephWood 17:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- Aand, I'm just gonna revert. The edit also reverted objectively correct updates in the number of views for the videos made by IPs. TimothyJosephWood 17:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Timothyjosephwood: are you talking about the pending edit that I reverted? DrStrauss talk 18:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, well mostly. About half the edits were my own, and should have been automatically accepted. But as I said, the pending edits from the IPs appear to be correct updates to the view numbers according to the primary sources (videos) given. TimothyJosephWood 18:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Timothyjosephwood: yes, I've come across you as an auto confirmed user just when recent change patrolling so I thought it was odd that you weren't automatically accepted. Maybe ask an admin to investigate? Thanks DrStrauss talk 22:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- I highly suspect that it's because the immediately prior edit wasn't accepted, and I edited the same section, meaning that the edit could not have been undone in the normal sense, and could only have been rolled back by rolling back every subsequent edit, which it did, but it probably should have given a warning message of some sort. TimothyJosephWood 22:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Timothyjosephwood: yes, I've come across you as an auto confirmed user just when recent change patrolling so I thought it was odd that you weren't automatically accepted. Maybe ask an admin to investigate? Thanks DrStrauss talk 22:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, well mostly. About half the edits were my own, and should have been automatically accepted. But as I said, the pending edits from the IPs appear to be correct updates to the view numbers according to the primary sources (videos) given. TimothyJosephWood 18:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Timothyjosephwood: are you talking about the pending edit that I reverted? DrStrauss talk 18:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- Aand, I'm just gonna revert. The edit also reverted objectively correct updates in the number of views for the videos made by IPs. TimothyJosephWood 17:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
RfC: "Is a most viewed list from several sources acceptable?"
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At K-pop#Social_media we have the "List of 20 most viewed K-pop music videos on YouTube". While we have an older source which gives a version of this list, we do not have a single source for the current list. Instead, editors have taken the earlier list, updated the numbers from various sources, and added and removed songs as needed. - 14:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- It is my opinion that is is clearly synthesis: Combining material from multiple sources to say something that no source says directly. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- The question is more whether such sub-lists of these charts, filtered by the arbitrary category, are allowed. They are clearly sourced by the YouTube charts, but filtered by say, music videos, music genres, or regions. What about List of most viewed Vevo videos? do they get an exception because they are VEVO? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- The question here probably is two parts:
- 1) Is the list noteworthy enough to include.
- 2) Do we have a reliable source for it?
- If the list does not have a source, we shouldn't include it. If we have a source, it's likely noteworthy (unless the cite is weak and/or old). In any event, sourcing the view counts to individual pages is a sloppy synthetic way to sidestep the issue. Yes, we can verifiably say how many views Big Bang's "Loser" had as of a particular date. However, we do not have a source saying that it was the 20th most viewed K-pop video on youtube as of that date. - SummerPhDv2.0 20:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Looking at the Billboard ones, those only track the top 10 of most popular Kpop videos for the month on YouTube for America and for the World, but I don't see articles from reliable sources that emphasize ranking all-time Kpop YouTube views. So your point with (1) makes sense and can be discussed. However, the scheme of updating per individual entry using the YouTube visit itself is still valid as that is the way many of these lists across countries such as populations, attendance figures, comparative economies, even infobox Youtube personalities are done. Question (2) has reliable sources, albeit often primary when it comes to YouTube stats. But the table can be helped if the comparative rank column were removed from the table as with List of largest cities. Also the artist should not be the first column, but the second one. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC) updated 02:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- The updating here is not merely updating the gross for a few more theaters showing The Force Awakens in advance of Rogue One. We can easily find sources ranking films by box office gross, cities by population, etc. In this case, we have very few sources giving the most viewed K-pop videos and are adding, removing and reordering entries based on that. We do not have a source giving the top 20 that we are showing. We have an old source (which we aren't citing) giving a different top 20 which we have significantly re-tooled into a new list that Wikipedia is saying is the top 20]]. If there is some way that this is not "combin(ing) material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", you will need to explain it to me. - SummerPhDv2.0 12:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
- Looking at the Billboard ones, those only track the top 10 of most popular Kpop videos for the month on YouTube for America and for the World, but I don't see articles from reliable sources that emphasize ranking all-time Kpop YouTube views. So your point with (1) makes sense and can be discussed. However, the scheme of updating per individual entry using the YouTube visit itself is still valid as that is the way many of these lists across countries such as populations, attendance figures, comparative economies, even infobox Youtube personalities are done. Question (2) has reliable sources, albeit often primary when it comes to YouTube stats. But the table can be helped if the comparative rank column were removed from the table as with List of largest cities. Also the artist should not be the first column, but the second one. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC) updated 02:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment: I have been asked to comment here. It seems the primary questions are: 1) Is the list noteworthy enough to include? Yes 2) Do we have a reliable source for it? Some - YouTube or Vivo or other sources are known 3) Are they clearly sourced? Some are, they should all have sources. Can the older sources that are no longer visible be resurrected? Netherzone (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- Netherzone: Thanks for commenting. The major dispute here doesn't seem to be whether we have a source giving the number of views for any given song, but whether we have a source saying the songs we are listing as the top 20 are actually the top 20. We do not have a current source for what the top 20 are. - SummerPhDv2.0 05:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- No, you can't do that. You are unable to present sources that verify who the top 20 are, making it original research. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment: I agree with the OP that the list amounts to WP:SYNTH. It does not reflect an official chart of any sort and is misleading. If high profile videos are mentioned in the sources then they should be mentioned in the prose. Karst (talk) 11:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
If the source is reliable, we could use it as a historical reference, i.e say that "in 20xx, the most watched vidoes were...". But to maintain such a list ourselves seems problematic, unless we have reliable sources. If not, this becomes close to WP:OR, IMHO. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Article was re-created
The List of most viewed K-pop music videos article was created in January and somehow was not included in the deletion, perhaps because it was worded differently. Anyways, I'm sending it to CSD, but it may be contested. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Questionable edits by a new editor: arbitrary "timeline"
Beth91191 has been trying to get an arbitrary selection of "landmarks" in the article--this one period apparently needs a list of things with no clear selection criteria. I contend that this list is utterly necessary, that such timelines serve no encyclopedic purpose and could be extended indefinitely. The article is about K-pop, not about "what Kpop's contribution to world" might be. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- First of all, I just want to say that I was just continuing what was written before in that part. I did not start something new. So if we really need to fix this situation, we can't just delete that list like that after I edited it. Why you don't delete it since before? If you read to the paragraphs part carefully, you can see that the contents on those paragraphs have same type information with the contents that were written in the list. Why you can keep the paragraphs but not the list? Then if you read to the last paragraph on that part, you can see that the explanation was stopped only until the 2nd generation of kpop industry. So where is the explanation for the 3rd generation groups? I think we can delete that list if only we provide informations about 3rd generation groups objectively on the paragraphs first. --Beth91191 (talk) 06:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hello Beth91191. All of us are here to improve the encyclopaedia. Many of us are also fans of K-pop and would like to improve the article. I understand, that you also want to help. But first of all,
- Please read what I wrote on your talk page. This is important for you to understand how Wikipedia works
- Read what are reliable sources.
- After you have read these, you can let us know if you still feel we need that list here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Lemongirl942 . Yes I read it. What i am trying to say is we can delete the list absolutely yes we can, but we need to provide information on the paragraphs too about 3rd generation groups' achievements first. Because if we read both, paragraphs and list, there is no difference in content type. They talk about what is kpop's achievements so far.
- I agree as well, this list should be absorbed into prose and deleted. No need for duplicate content. Evaders99 (talk) 01:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hello Beth91191. All of us are here to improve the encyclopaedia. Many of us are also fans of K-pop and would like to improve the article. I understand, that you also want to help. But first of all,
Most viewed videos
This list has been removed from this article to create a daughter article. That article was deleted through a deletion discussion.
Then someone recreated the list here. That was eventually deleted through a request for comments.
The spin-off article was recreated. It was proposed for speedy deletion as recreation of previously deleted material. While waiting for that deletion, the article was slowly increased from 20 to 100 songs. (I'm guessing the thinking was that lots and lots of synthesis would somehow not be synthesis.) After a few days of that, it was taken to WP:AFD again where it was heading for a fresh deletion when it was deleted as re-creation of a deleted article.
Now we've had it added here again. It's been removed twice so far. The editor re-re-re-re-adding the list is one of several single-purpose accounts interested in nothing but this list. The smell of socks is strong.
If, somehow, you believe there is not a consensus to not include this list, I can't help you. If you re-re-re-re-re-add the list, we'll have to start sock cases, blocks, page protection and all of that nonsense.
If you believe you have a completely fresh approach, you will need to discuss the issue here first. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
- Blaineandersean, an apparent sock and a definite single-purpose account is having trouble hearing the consensus and recreated the article as "List of most K-pop viewed videos on Youtube". Yes, these are the "most K-pop" of any videos. It has been speedied. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on K-pop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mtvk.com/news/story.jhtml?id=1535149
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130113112915/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/cashing-gangnam-styles-youtube-fame to http://bigstory.ap.org/article/cashing-gangnam-styles-youtube-fame
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://mtvk.com/2011/01/10/k-pop-dictionary-maknae-%EB%A7%89%EB%82%B4/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320101135/http://www.houseofblues.com/artistfeatures/artistofmonth/1006wondergirls/ to http://www.houseofblues.com/artistfeatures/artistofmonth/1006wondergirls/
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://world.kbs.co.kr/english/entertainment/enter_chart_detail.htm?No=10722
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Criticism??
Main accusations and criticisms faced by the genre and industry as a whole include: Unoriginal character and plagiarism of Western music. Cultural appropriation. Strict training and "pre-packaging" method. Sexualisation of both female and male idols, particularly young idols. Exploitation and unfair living conditions of idols. Emphasis on visual elements at the possible expense of musical elements. Incorrect use of English and "meaningless" lyrics.
Are any of these "criticisms" only unique to K pop? Having an entire section of criticisms is very unusual in a music related article, regardless of its genre or nature. I propose either removing it entirely or including the points into relevant areas of the article. Pds0101 (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on K-pop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100302142038/http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/financials.asp?ticker=041510:KS to http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/financials.asp?ticker=041510:KS
- Added archive https://archive.is/20130111060515/http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2916729 to http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2916729
- Added archive https://archive.is/20130103133028/http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2951370 to http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2951370
- Added archive https://archive.is/20160710194144/http://beed.com.np/beed-insights/article.php?id=59 to http://beed.com.np/beed-insights/article.php?id=59
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120624080805/http://en.korea.com/blog/enter/k-pop/super-junior-and-shinee-meet-a-young-american-girl/ to http://en.korea.com/blog/enter/k-pop/super-junior-and-shinee-meet-a-young-american-girl/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140408213113/http://english.visitkoreayear.com/english/community/community_01_01_01_view.asp?bidx=219 to http://english.visitkoreayear.com/english/community/community_01_01_01_view.asp?bidx=219
- Added archive https://archive.is/20130127033843/http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2938596 to http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2938596
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on K-pop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308023613/http://quart.hu/cikk.php?id=6625 to http://quart.hu/cikk.php?id=6625
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140927001844/http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest+News/Asia/Story/A1Story20110822-295555.html to http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest+News/Asia/Story/A1Story20110822-295555.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130723213322/http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/financials.asp?ticker=122870:KS to http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/financials.asp?ticker=122870:KS
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130723213343/http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/financials.asp?ticker=035900:KS to http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/financials.asp?ticker=035900:KS
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140804122719/http://www.wonderingsound.com/news/south-korea-passes-law-regulating-k-pop-industry/ to http://www.wonderingsound.com/news/south-korea-passes-law-regulating-k-pop-industry/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Thoughts on Defining "Concepts"?
Hi all, just added a slightly longer definition of concepts on the page. Does anyone know of any scholarly sources that can support their usage? From my understanding, concepts as a term are used frequently not only by fans, but also by the producers of the groups themselves. I want to try and keep from being too subjective on the defining the exact kinds of concepts while at the same time highlighting that they are an important, and possibly unique, factor in idol group marketing. Any thoughts? Luminous744 (talk) 06:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Popularity and impact section
Further to some of the previous discussion on this page, I have removed the "Popularity and impact" section as it appears to be a indiscriminate collection of disparate facts and concert dates that is too long for readability. However, there may be some useful points or citations here. If so, they might fit in the "Appeal and fan base" section or the "Foreign relations" section, or maybe even in the separate article for the Korean Wave. Yannaynay (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Yannaynay: I would say virtually the entire "Asia" section should be kept as it does not discuss tour dates, concerts etc. The entire section about China, India, Singapore, Nepal and Malaysia are good and should not be removed because they discuss information that is quite interesting and show how K-pop has impacted people in those countries. The second half of the "Japan" section is also good and I think it should be kept. As for the other information I agree there is interesting information that should be kept in regards to concert numbers etc. but not all such as tour dates of certain K-pop acts. (121.220.53.4 (talk) 11:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC))
- @Yannaynay: I just accepted a pending edit from this anonymous editor restoring the section because looking through the deleted prose, I agree that an explanation of "it appears to be a indiscriminate collection of disparate facts and concert dates that is too long for readability" is odd and indicates that you didn't actually read everything you removed. Further, the caveat that "there may be some useful points or citations here" is even stranger; if there's anything like this there, why did you remove it? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 15:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello. For my class, we are suppose to pick an article section to expand on. I decided to expand on the Oceancia's section. If possible, please look over my draft in my sandbox and provide an feedback if necessary. Thank you. Ladykayyy1 (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Popularity and impact section
|
|---|
Popularity and impactAsiaJapanFollowing the lifting of import and export restrictions between South Korea and Japan in place since WWII, BoA's debut Japanese album Listen to My Heart in 2002 was the first album by a Korean artist to debut at the top of the Japanese Oricon charts and become an RIAJ-certified 'million-seller' in Japan.[1] On January 16, 2008, TVXQ (known as Tohoshinki in Japan) also reached the top of the Oricon charts with their sixteenth Japanese single "Purple Line". This made them the first foreign and Korean male group to have a number-one single in Japan.[2][3] Since then, the Japanese market has seen an influx of Korean pop acts such as SS501,[4] Shinee,[5] Super Junior,[6] Big Bang,[7] KARA and Girls' Generation.[8] In 2011, it was reported that the total sales for K-pop artists' increased 22.3% between 2010–2011 in Japan. Some Korean artists were in the top 10 selling artists of the year in Japan.[9] With remaining tension between Japan and Korea, the import of Korean culture has been met with resistance, in the form of the 'Anti-Korean Wave'. One demonstration against the Korean Wave with roughly 500 participants was broadcast on Japan’s Fuji TV to an Internet audience of over 120,000. However, the chairman of the Presidential Council on National Branding cites this resistance as proof of “how successful Korean Wave is.”[10] According to the Korea Foundation for International Culture Exchange's 'Korean Wave index', the top consumer in 2010 was Japan, in a list that also included Taiwan, China, Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines. ChinaK-pop has yet to dominate the Chinese market, but there has been considerable success: in 2005, Rain held a concert in Beijing with 40,000 people in attendance.[11] The Wonder Girls won an award in the 5th annual China Mobile Wireless Music Award for the highest digital sales for a foreign artist, with 5 million digital downloads in 2010.[12] Entertainment companies often include Chinese members in idol groups with the aim of marketing to China; SM Entertainment's EXO-M was an example of this. Super Junior and their sub-group Super Junior-M have had successful results on the Kuang Nan Record, CCR and Hit Fm Taiwan music charts.[13] IndiaIn the Indian state of Manipur, where separatists have banned Bollywood movies, consumers have turned to Korean popular culture for their entertainment needs. The BBC's correspondent Sanjoy Majumder reported that Korean entertainment products are mostly unlicensed copies smuggled in from neighbouring Burma, and are generally well received by the local population. This has led to the increasing use of Korean phrases in common parlance among young people.[14][15] In order to capitalize on the popularity of K-pop in Manipur, many hairdressing salons have offered "Korean-style" cuts based on the hairstyles of K-pop boy bands.[14][15] This wave of Korean popular culture is currently spreading from Manipur to the neighbouring state of Nagaland.[16] SingaporeThere is a thriving K-pop fanbase in Singapore, where idol groups, such as 2NE1, EXO and GOT7, often hold concert tour dates.[17][18] The popularity of K-pop alongside Korean dramas has influenced the beauty image of Singaporeans. Korean-style "straight eyebrows" have become quite popular among many Singaporean females and males of Chinese, Malay and Indian descent.[19] Singaporean beauty salons have seen an increase in the number of customers interested in getting Korean-style "straight eyebrows" in recent years.[20] NepalIn Nepal, K-pop gained popularity along with Korean dramas and films. K-pop has become influential in the Nepali music industry and K-pop music videos are often used as an accompaniment to Nepali music on YouTube and has become a popular trend in the country.[21][22] MalaysiaIn Malaysia, among the three main ethnic groups- Malay, Chinese and Indian- many prefer to listen to music in their own languages, but the popularity of K-pop alongside Korean movies and TV dramas has become popular among all three ethnic groups, which Malaysian firms have capitalised upon.[23] The popularity of K-pop has also resulted in politicians bringing K-pop idols to the country in order attract young voters.[24]  North AmericaIn 2006, Rain held sold-out concerts in New York and Las Vegas as part of his Rain's Coming World Tour. In 2009, the Wonder Girls became the first K-pop artist to debut on the Billboard Hot 100 singles chart.[27] They went on to join the Jonas Brothers on the Jonas Brothers World Tour 2009. In 2010, they toured 20 cities in the United States, Canada and Mexico, and were named House of Blues "Artist of the Month" for June.[28] In 2010, SM Entertainment held the SMTown Live '10 World Tour with dates in Los Angeles, Paris, Tokyo, and New York. The same year, during the 8th Annual Korean Music Festival, K-pop artists made their first appearances at the Hollywood Bowl.[29] 2012 marked a breakthrough year for K-pop in North America. At the start of the year, Girls' Generation performed the English version of "The Boys" on the late night talk show The Late Show with David Letterman and also on the daytime talk show Live! with Kelly, becoming the first Korean musical act to perform on these shows, and the first Korean act to perform on syndicated television in the United States.[31] In the same year, the group formed their first sub-unit, entitled Girls' Generation-TTS, or simply "TTS", composed of members Taeyeon, Tiffany, and Seohyun. The subgroup's debut EP, Twinkle, peaked at #126 on the Billboard 200.[32] In May, SMTown returned to California again with the SMTown Live World Tour III in Anaheim. In August, as part of their New Evolution Global Tour, 2NE1 held their first American concert in the New York Metropolitan Area at the Prudential Center of Newark, New Jersey.[33] In November, as part of their Alive Tour, Big Bang held their first solo concert in America, visiting the Honda Center in Los Angeles and the Prudential Center in Newark, New Jersey. The tickets sold out in only a few hours, and additional dates were added.[34] On November 13, the American singer-songwriter Madonna and backup dancers performed "Gangnam Style" alongside PSY during a concert at Madison Square Garden in New York City. PSY later told reporters that his gig with Madonna had "topped his list of accomplishments".[35] On January 29, 2013, Billboard, one of America's most popular music magazines, launched Billboard K-Town, an online column on its website that covered K-pop news, artists, concerts, and chart information.[36][37][38] In March of that year, f(x) performed at the K-Pop Night Out at SXSW in Austin, Texas, alongside the The Geeks, who represented Korean rock. f(x) was the first K-pop group ever to perform at SXSW.[39] Mnet hosted its Kcon event in NY and LA in July 2016.[40][41] Latin AmericaMany idol groups have loyal fanbases in Latin America. Since 2009, about 260 fan clubs with a total of over 20,000 and 8,000 active members have been formed in Chile and Peru respectively.[42][43] In 2011, the United Cube Concert was held in São Paulo, shortly after the second round of the first K-Pop Cover Dance Festival was held in Brazil, with MBLAQ as judges.[44] In March 2012, JYJ performed in Chile and Peru. When the group arrived at the Jorge Chávez International Airport in Peru for the JYJ World Tour Concert, they were escorted by airport security officials through a private exit due to safety reasons concerning the large number of fans (over 3,000).[45] At the Explanada Sur del Estadio Monumental in Lima, some fans camped out for days in to see JYJ.[46] In April, Caracol TV and Arirang TV jointly aired a K-pop reality show in Colombia.[47] In September, Junsu became the first K-pop idol to perform solo in Brazil and Mexico, after the Wonder Girls in Monterrey in 2009.[48] The concerts sold out well in advance.[48] That year there were 70 K-pop fan clubs in Mexico, with at least 60,000 members altogether.[49] In January 2014, Kim Hyung-jun performed in Peru, Chile, and Bolivia, becoming the first K-pop idol to perform in Bolivia.[50] The tour proved his popularity in the continent as both fans and the media followed him everywhere he went, causing traffic on the roads and police to be called to maintain safety.[51] Fans were also seen pitching their tents outside the concert venue for days before the actual concert.[52][53] Europe  In February 2012, BEAST held their Beautiful Show in Berlin. According to the Berliner Zeitung, many fans who attended were not just from Germany but also from neighbouring countries such as France and Switzerland.[59] Also in February, the Music Bank World Tour drew more than 10,000 fans to the Palais Omnisports de Paris-Bercy.[60] That year, artists such as Beast and 4Minute performed during the United Cube Concert in London, where the MBC Korean Culture Festival was also held.[61] When SHINee arrived at the London Heathrow Airport for a concert at the Odeon West End in the same year, part of the airport became temporarily overrun by frenzied fans. The reservation system of the Odeon West End crashed for the first time one minute after ticket sales began as the concert drew an unexpectedly large response.[62] At this time, SHINee also held a 30-minute performance at the Abbey Road Studio. The ticket demand for this performance was so high that fashion magazine Elle gave away forty tickets through a lottery, and the performance was also televised in Japan through six different channels.[10] Also in 2012, Big Bang won the Best Fan category in the Italian TRL Awards.[63] 2014 saw a continued rise in the popularity of K-pop in Russia. On February 3, Park Jung-min became the first ever Korean singer to hold a solo concert in Moscow.[64] Middle East and AfricaK-pop has become increasingly popular across the Middle East and Africa over recent years, particularly among younger fans.[65] In July 2011, Israeli fans met South Korea's Ambassador to Israel, Ma Young-sam, and traveled to Paris for the SMTown Live '10 World Tour in Europe.[66] According to Dr. Nissim Atmazgin, a professor of East Asian Studies at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, "Many young people look at K-pop as culture capital- something that makes them stand out from the crowd." As of 2012, there are over 5,000 K-pop fans in Israel and 3,000 in the Palestinian territories.[67] Some dedicated Israeli and Palestinian fans see themselves as "cultural missionaries" and actively introduce K-pop to their friends and relatives, further spreading the Hallyu wave within their communities.[68] In 2012, the number of fans in Turkey surpassed 100,000, reaching 150,000 in 2013.[65][69] ZE:A appeared for a fan meet-and-greet session in Dubai and a concert in Abu Dhabi.[70][71] In Cairo, hundreds of fans went to Maadi Library’s stage theater to see the final round of the K-POP Korean Song Festival, organised by the Korean Embassy.[72] OceaniaIn 2011, the K-Pop Music Festival at the ANZ Stadium was held in Sydney, featuring Girls' Generation, TVXQ, B2ST, SHINee, 4minute, miss A, 2AM, and MBLAQ.[73] There was also demand for concerts from New Zealand.[74] In August 2012, NU'EST visited Sydney Harbour and the University of New South Wales, as judges of a K-pop contest being held there. The following year, 4Minute were judges at the same contest in Sydney.[75] In October, Psy toured Australia after his single "Gangnam Style" reached number one in Australia on the ARIA charts.[76] In May 2016, B.A.P held a concert in Auckland, becoming the first K-Pop group to perform in New Zealand.[77][78] |
Popularity and impact section references
|
|---|
|
References
|
Economic impact of kpop throughout South Korea
These are the references that were used in this deleted article, perhaps they can be of use here. --Randykitty (talk) 16:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
"Korean Wave (Hallyu) - Rise of Korea's Cultural Economy & Pop Culture". Martin Roll. 2018-01-01. Retrieved 2018-11-08.
"Global Craze for K-Pop: A New Economic Engine - :: KOREA FOCUS ::". www.koreafocus.or.kr. Retrieved 2018-11-08.
"How The South Korean Government Made K-Pop A Thing". NPR.org. Retrieved 2018-11-08.
"A Lesson in Culture from K-Pop and the South Korean Ministry of Culture". exaqueo. Retrieved 2018-11-08.
TURNER, ROCHELLE (2018). TRAVEL & TOURISM ECONOMIC IMPACT 2018 SOUTH KOREA. World Travel & Tourism Council. p. 2.
Smith, Oliver (2017-06-29). "The world's fastest growing tourist destination will shock you". Traveller. Retrieved 2018-11-08.
"K-Pop Makes the Scene in Seoul". CityLab. Retrieved 2018-11-08.
"KOREAN CELEBRITY ENDORSEMENT: THE NEW MUST FOR BRANDS". Dare Asia. 2018-06-12. Retrieved 2018-11-08.
Um, Nam-Hyun (2018-02-15). "Domestic Celebrity Endorsement from Legal Perspectives : Who is Responsible for Exaggerative or False advertisement Featuring Celebrity Endorsers". The Korean Journal of Advertising. 29 (2): 79–95. doi:10.14377/kja.2018.2.28.79. ISSN 1225-0554.
Music show wins discussion
Discussion and survey at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Korea/Popular_culture#Are_music_show_wins_notable? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Glossary of K-pop terms
A draft was created at Draft:Glossary of K-pop terms. I tried to trim out some of the more generic Korean terms such as unnie. Should this be revisited? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, "feels", "molca"/"molka" and "stan" should probably go. Cheers, gnu57 22:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- I've scrubbed the draft so now it's a stub-like list with some references. Is this notable enough to have a separate list? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I checked your draft, and there are some mistakes.... A "Gayo" is not "An end-of-year K-pop music show", but it's a word that means "popular music" in Korean....And I think that the word "comeback" is not a typical K-pop term, this word is also used in other music styles.--Drndgg (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Drndgg, the greater question is whether a glossary article should be created. Comeback is definitely a typical K-pop term. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry but the word "comeback" is also used here in France (yes I'm from France) when we talk about American/French/... artists--Drndgg (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- AngusWOOF, Ok for the word "Comeback", but for the word "Gayo", we should change it. But honestly, I don't think this list should have its own article. I think it's not what Wikipedia's purpose to explain Words... It looks like what a online blog would do. --Drndgg (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
The K-Pop divide between the Korean Peninsula
K-pop page is not made up as a pop genre of the Korean Peninsula as a whole, it has been divided having it based on South Korea, so what happens to North Korea? I was thinking of this, having DPRK-pop
- "Pop: Stealing Seoul's Olympic Thunder, Pyongyang Exports Hot Talent". Sputnik News. 28 January 2019. Retrieved 29 August 2019.</ref>
- "Top 5 Essential DPRK Bangers: North Korea in Songs". Young Pioneer Tours.</ref>
- ja:DPRK-POP</ref> because it is based off from the DPRK and because of this division having been split and being two distinguishable sounds of music and scene or we could try divide the page having SK-pop and NK-pop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:401e:ef00:7880:9b95:4132:2a5d (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Too much BTS...
Hello, I noticed that, there are maybe too much BTS's references in this K-Pop Wikipedia page. I understand that this groupe is really popular and has set records, but it doesn't mean that this page needs to show everything that BTS has won, am I wrong? I am saying this because, other K-pop groups have won prices in the US, but it's not written, and I don't think that it's necessary to talk about it, or if we have to, the list would be too long...
--Drndgg (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. To talk about the group there is already an article of them, the fact that they are successful in the United States it doesn't have to be a factor to fill in with references only about them in this article. There is lack of good sense in the editions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.19.164.94 (talk) 11:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Relevance of "C-pop" section?
Though there is considerable note of K-pop influence China resulting in similar groups, I feel that the section is a bit lengthy for its actual note on this specific article. I suggest shortening it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kugihot (talk • contribs) 18:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Romanization/Edition
It could be included next to the Korean term K-pop, romanization according to Korean vocabulary rules.
케이팝 = Keipap
Thanks :) Taecyeon.kr (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Not a very coherent article
For example, the same quote from "professor Ingyu Oh" appears twice in the article. That needs to be fixed. 2601:281:CC80:5AE0:D9AC:B03:6B93:DBF (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2021
| This edit request to K-pop has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "styles and genres from around the world" to "styles and genres worldwide" Change "emerged with the formation of one" to "emerged forming one " Change "The term "K-pop" became popular since the 2000s" to "The term "K-pop" became popular in the 2000s." Change "the fastest-growing major market of the year" to "the fastest-growing primary market of the year" Jelena Eli (talk) 08:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Partly done: I'm not sure all of these are improvements. For the first, it seems to flow better as is. For the second, that actually seems to change the meaning of the text – like there were parcels of proto K-pop lying around that coalesced to form K-pop proper, rather than K-pop emerging with that band as the first instance. I changed the third as you suggested. For the fourth, primary market is mostly a technical term that wouldn't apply here. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Stylistic origins?
Binksternet, i'm confused about the definition of "stylistic origins". They put all the influences into stylistic origins section. Aren't stylistic origins and genre influences different things? As far i know, stylistic origin is the root of the genre, like pop and rock are originated from rock n roll, while genre influences are additional compositions that come from another genres. Am i wrong? -GogoLion (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jisooh1997, Luminous744, R2p55, Lko2. Peer reviewers: Luminous744.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)